Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

1

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

Record of Decision

California High-Speed Train 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section

1.0 Introduction

This is the Record of Decision (ROD) of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an 

operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), and the lead 

Federal agency for the California High-Speed Train (HST) Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

(Project) (Figure 1). The Project Proponent is the California High-Speed Rail Authority 

(Authority), the lead agency for state environmental reviews under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and joint lead agency with FRA for Federal 

environmental reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 

Authority proposes to construct and operate the Project after receiving the required

approvals from the appropriate Federal agencies. These agencies include FRA and the 

Federal cooperating agencies—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the 

Surface Transportation Board (STB). Other Federal agencies with specific review or 

permitting roles include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

To comply with NEPA and CEQA, FRA and the Authority issued a joint Draft 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the California HST Project in August 2011, a joint 

Revised Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS in July 2012, and a joint Final EIR/EIS in 

April 2014. The joint EIR/EIS is one document that covers both state and federal 

environmental requirements. However, because this ROD contains only the decision of 

FRA the documents are referred to as the “Draft EIS,” “Supplemental Draft EIS,” and the 

“Final EIS.” In making its decision, FRA considered the information and analysis 

contained in the 2011 Draft EIS, 2012 Supplemental Draft EIS, and 2014 Final EIS 

(collectively, “EIS Documents”). FRA also considered public and agency comments 

received during the public comment periods for the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft 

EIS, and the waiting period following the publication of the Final EIS. 

Based on the analysis of the Project’s potential environmental effects (both adverse and 

beneficial) in the EIS Documents and substantive agency and public comments, FRA 

selects portions of the BNSF Alternative in combination with the Corcoran Bypass, 

Allensworth Bypass, and Bakersfield Hybrid alternatives. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

2

Figure 1

Preferred Alternative and Other HST Alternatives
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

3

The Project also includes the Downtown Fresno Mariposa Street Station Alternative 

which was selected by the FRA in the Merced to Fresno Section ROD (September 18, 

2012) and the Kings/Tulare Regional Station – East Alternative and the Downtown 

Bakersfield Hybrid Station Alternative. The alternatives are described further in Section 

4.0 below. FRA is not selecting a Heavy Maintenance Facility alternative at this time. 

FRA has prepared the ROD in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 C.F.R. Section 1505.2) and FRA’s Procedures 

for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545, May 26, 1999)

(FRA Environmental Procedures). Specifically, this ROD: 

• Provides background on the NEPA process leading to the Final EIS, including a 

summary of public involvement and agency coordination.

• States and reaffirms the Project’s purpose and need.

• Summarizes the alternatives analysis process that lead to the identification of 

alternatives not carried forward for study in the Draft EIS.

• Identifies the alternatives considered in the EIS Documents.

• Identifies the selected alternative.

• Identifies the Environmentally Preferable Alternative.

• Summarizes environmental benefits and adverse effects.

• Summarizes the comments received on the Final EIS.

• Discusses the measures to avoid and minimize environmental harm and requires 

a monitoring and enforcement program for all mitigation measures.

• Presents the FRA Decision, determinations, and findings on the proposed Project 

and identifies and discusses the factors that were balanced by FRA in making its 

decision.

1.1 California HST System 

The Authority is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and operating the 

California HST System. Its state statutory mandate is to develop a high-speed rail system 

that coordinates with the state’s existing transportation network, which includes 

intercity rail and bus lines, regional commuter rail lines, urban rail and bus transit lines, 

highways, and airports. 

The California HST System will provide intercity, high-speed service on more than 

800 miles of track throughout California, connecting the major population centers of 

Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland 

Empire, Orange County, and San Diego, as shown in Figure 2. The Authority and FRA 

prepared two programmatic (Tier 1) EIR/EIS documents to select preferred alignments 

and station locations to advance for project-level analysis in Tier 2 EIR/EISs. See

Chapter 1 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIS for a detailed description of the 

HST System and the history of Tier 1 documents. Figure 2 shows the corridors and 

station locations for the California HST System that the Tier 1 EIR/EISs and Tier 1 

decisions identified for further review and analysis in Tier 2 project level analysis. The
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

4

Figure 2

Statewide HST System
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

5

HST System will use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-onsteel-rail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automatic traincontrol systems that would incorporate positive train control infrastructure and be 

compliant with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 236 Subpart I, with trains capable of 

operating up to 220 miles per hour (mph) over a fully grade-separated, dedicated 

guideway alignment. 

The California HST System as approved through Tier 1 decisions has been divided into 

nine individual sections for site-specific, second-tier analysis. The Authority and FRA 

defined HST project sections such that they would have independent utility or 

independent significance, i.e., be usable even if later sections of the HSR system are not 

completed. 

Following the Tier 1 decisions, the Fresno to Bakersfield Section is one of the nine 

individual sections undergoing Tier 2 environmental review. As described in the October 

1, 2009, Notice of Intent (NOI) for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section (74 FR 50866), FRA 

identified the Project termini as the station sites in downtown Fresno and Bakersfield. 

This is consistent with the Tier 1 decisions and permits full analysis and consideration of 

the potential impacts of construction and operation of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

of the California HST System.

The Authority plans two phases of California HST System development: Phase 1 (to be 

constructed in stages dependent on funding availability) will connect San Francisco to 

Los Angeles/Anaheim via Pacheco Pass and the Central Valley through a combination of 

dedicated high-speed rail infrastructure blended with existing urban systems, with a 

state statute mandated express travel time from San Francisco to Los Angeles of 2 hours 

and 40 minutes or less. Phase 2 will extend the system from Los Angeles to San Diego 

and from Merced to Sacramento. The California HST System could have more than 200 

trains per day after full build-out of Phase 2. The California High-Speed Rail Program 

Revised 2012 Business Plan and the 2014 Business Plan describe in detail how Phase 1 of 

the California HST System will be implemented and recognizes current budgetary and 

funding realities, which will result in both Phase 1 and Phase 2 being constructed over a 

longer period of time than originally anticipated.

1.2 Fresno to Bakersfield Section

FRA and the Authority, as joint lead agencies for NEPA compliance, commenced the 

environmental review process for the Project in 2009. The Authority held scoping 

meetings for the Project in March 2009. The Draft EIS was issued in August 2011 and the 

60-day public review period closed on October 13, 2011. The Draft EIS presented the 

purpose and need for the Project; the reasonable range of alternatives for rail alignment, 

station site, and heavy maintenance facility (HMF); the existing environmental setting; 

potential effects (both beneficial and adverse) from construction and operation; and 

project design features and mitigation measures to avoid, reduce, or eliminate potential 

adverse environmental effects.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

6

The Draft EIS informed decision-makers, interested parties, and the public about the 

various alternatives and potential impacts. FRA and the Authority held public hearings 

in Fresno, Hanford, and Bakersfield to provide opportunities for all of the public to 

comment on the Draft EIS verbally and in writing. FRA and the Authority received 1,447

comment submittals on the Draft EIS.

Based on comments received during the public and agency review of the Draft EIS, the 

FRA and Authority decided to reintroduce alignment alternatives west of Hanford. In 

response to concerns raised by stakeholders in metropolitan Bakersfield, the FRA and 

Authority also decided to evaluate another alternative in Bakersfield (Bakersfield Hybrid 

Alternative) that would minimize impacts on residential and community facilities. The 

FRA and Authority determined that the introduction of these new alternatives and 

refinements being considered for existing Fresno to Bakersfield route alternatives 

required publication of a Supplemental Draft EIS in compliance with NEPA (40 C.F.R. 

Section 1502.9(c)) and a Revised Draft EIR in compliance with CEQA. The Supplemental 

Draft EIS was issued in July 2012 and the 90-day public review period closed on October 

19, 2012. FRA and the Authority held public hearings in Fresno, Hanford, and 

Bakersfield to provide opportunities for all of the public to comment on the 

Supplemental Draft EIS verbally and in writing. FRA and the Authority received 824

comment submittals on the Supplemental Draft EIS. 

FRA and the Authority considered the information presented in and the comments 

received on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS when preparing the Final EIS. The 

Final EIS, published April 18, 2014, identified the BNSF Alternative in combination with 

the Corcoran Bypass, Allensworth Bypass, and Bakersfield Hybrid as the preferred 

alignment alternatives and the Downtown Fresno Mariposa Street Station, Kings/Tulare 

Regional Station – East Alternative, and the Downtown Bakersfield Hybrid Station as 

the preferred station alternatives. The Final EIS did not identify any of the proposed 

build alternatives for the HMF as preferred. The Final EIS also included responses to all 

substantive comments and minor design modifications to proposed alternatives resulting 

from public and agency comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS.1 

Following the identification of the Preferred Alternative, the USACE and EPA concurred 

(on December 19, 20132)—based upon the analyses in the Draft EIS and Supplemental 

 

1 The Authority proposes to use the design/build method of project delivery. When using 

design/build, a contractor (or team of contractors) is selected to provide design and construction 

services under a single contract. Project design modifications may occur as design is finalized. FRA 

and the Authority will consider whether project design modifications could result in new 

environmental impacts of a type or severity not analyzed in the EIS Documents. Where appropriate, 

FRA and the Authority will evaluate the modification to determine whether it would result in a 

substantial change that requires a supplemental Final EIS consistent with 40 C.F.R. 1502.9(c).

2 Letter from Michael S. Jewell, Chief, Regulatory Division of USACE to Mark McLaughlin, Authority. 

Sacramento, CA. December 19, 2013. Letter from Connell Dunning, Transportation Team Supervisor, 

Environmental Review Office of EPA to David Valenstein, FRA and Mark McLoughlin, Authority. San 

Francisco, CA. December 19, 2013. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

7

Draft EIS as well as documents submitted as part of the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 

404 and NEPA integration process,3 and the biological assessment of ecosystems 

impacts and cultural and community impacts—that the Preferred Alternative contains 

the preliminary least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), 

consistent with USACE’s permit program (33 C.F.R. Part 320–331) and EPA’s Section 

404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 C.F.R. 230–233).

Table 1: Summary of Major NEPA Milestones

Milestone Date

Notice of Intent (NOI) February and October4

2009

Public Scoping Meetings March 2009

Notice of Availability Published and Circulation of Draft EIS/Draft 

Section 4(f) Evaluation

August 2011

Public Hearings: Fresno, Hanford, and Bakersfield September 2011

Notice of Availability Published and Circulation of Supplemental

Draft EIS/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation

July 2012

Public Hearings: Fresno, Hanford, and Bakersfield August 2012

Notice of Availability and Publication of Final EIS / Section 4(f) 

Evaluation and Draft General Conformity Determination

April 25, 2014

End of 30-day waiting period for Final EIS and 30-day comment 

period for the Section 4(f) Evaluation and Draft General Conformity 

Determination 

May 27, 2014

2.0 Federal Agency Roles and Responsibilities 

The specific roles and responsibilities of the Federal agencies involved in the Project, 

including lead, cooperating, and permitting agencies, are further described below.

 

3 For more information about the integration of NEPA with Clean Water Act Section 404 permitting, 

please see Section 2.2. For more information about the identification of the LEDPA and the 

integration of USACE’s 404 permit into the NEPA process, please see Section 4.4. 

4 The February 2009 NOI reflected project limits for a Merced to Bakersfield Section. FRA 

subsequently amended the NOI in October 2009 after determining that the environmental effects of 

the California HST System between Merced to Bakersfield are more appropriately analyzed in two 

separate EISs, the Merced to Fresno and Fresno to Bakersfield Sections. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

8

2.1 Federal Railroad Administration

Under 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) 20103, FRA has authority over every area of 

railroad safety. As such, FRA may exercise certain regulatory authority over the Project. 

FRA also administers the High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant program. Based on 

the evaluation of applications submitted to FRA and the two Tier 1 EIRs/EISs and 

subsequent RODs, FRA selected the Authority to receive grant funds for preliminary 

engineering and environmental reviews for Phase 1 of the California HST System, and 

final design and construction of the California HST System between Madera, a city 

located within the Merced to Fresno Section, and Bakersfield (Kern County) in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section. 

Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303) prohibits DOT and its operating

administrations, including FRA, from undertaking a transportation project or providing 

Federal funding or discretionary approvals for a project that results in the use of land 

from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic 

sites of national, state, or local significance located on public or private land, unless FRA 

determines that there are de minimis impacts or there is no feasible and prudent 

alternative to the use of the resource and the action includes all possible planning to 

minimize harm to the property resulting from use. Section 4(f) also protects historic sites 

of national, state, or local significance located on public or private land. FRA’s Section 

4(f) Determination is included as Section 9.2 of this ROD. 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470f),

requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on 

historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a 

reasonable opportunity to comment. The historic preservation review process mandated 

by Section 106 is outlined in regulations issued by the ACHP that are available at 36 

C.F.R. Part 800. Under the NHPA, significant cultural resources, referred to as historic 

properties, include any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, object, or 

landscape included in, or eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP). A Programmatic Agreement (PA) among FRA, ACHP, the California State 

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), and the Authority regarding compliance with 

Section 106 of the NHPA for the California HST System was executed on July 22, 2011.5 

In accordance with the PA, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the treatment of 

adverse effects on historic properties in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the 

California HST System was executed on May 14, 2014 (see Appendix A). The California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Fresno, City of Corcoran, City of Shafter, 

City of Bakersfield, and Sociedad Juarez Mutulaista Mexicana as well as the following 

Federally-recognized Native American tribes: Santa Rosa Tachi Yokuts Tribe, Table 

Mountain Rancheria, Picayune Rancheria of the Chukchansi Indians, Tule River Indian 

Tribe, and Kern Valley Indian Council, have accepted FRA and Authority’s invitations to 

 

5 Authority and FRA. 2012. Programmatic Agreement. Appendix 3.17-A of the California HST Merced 

to Fresno Section Final Project EIR/EIS. Volume II: Technical Appendices. Sacramento, CA, and 

Washington, D.C. April 2012.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

9

be consulting parties to the MOA and subsequent treatment plans. The MOA was sent to 

consulting parties for signature on May 16, 2014.

Pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 176(c) requirements, EPA promulgated 40 

C.F.R. 51 Subpart W and 40 C.F.R. Part 93, Subpart B, “Determining Conformity of 

General Federal Actions to State or Federal Implementation Plans” (58 FR 63214,

November 30, 1993, as amended, 75 FR 17253, April 5, 2010). These regulations, 

commonly referred to as the General Conformity Rule, apply to all Federal actions,

including those by FRA, except for those Federal actions that are excluded from review 

(e.g., stationary source emissions) or related to transportation plans, programs, and 

projects under Title 23 or the Federal Transit Act, which are subject to the

Transportation Conformity Rule. 

A conformity determination under the General Conformity Rule is required if the 

Federal agency determines the following: the action will occur in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area; that one or more specific exemptions do not apply to the action; the 

action is not included in the Federal agency’s “presumed to conform” list; the emissions 

from the proposed action are not within the approved emissions budget for an applicable 

facility; and the total direct and indirect emissions of a pollutant (or its precursors), are 

at or above the de minimis levels established in the General Conformity regulations. The 

proposed Project is subject to review under the General Conformity Rule; therefore, FRA 

prepared a General Conformity Determination consistent with the applicable regulatory 

requirements. FRA is issuing the final General Conformity Determination concurrently 

with this ROD.

2.2 Surface Transportation Board

The STB has authority over construction and operation of new rail lines (49 U.S.C.

10901). As the STB explained in its June 13, 2013 decision authorizing construction of 

the 65-mile section of the California HST System between Merced and Fresno (Docket 

No. FD_35724_0), 49 U.S.C. 10501(a)(2)(A) gives the STB jurisdiction over 

transportation by rail carrier in one state, as long as that intrastate transportation is 

carried out “as part of the interstate rail network.” Because the California HST System 

would have extensive connectivity with Amtrak, which has long provided interstate 

passenger service, the STB determined that the California HST System would be 

constructed as part of the interstate rail network. The STB therefore concluded that it 

has jurisdiction over the California HST System and must authorize construction of each 

section.

2.3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USACE is responsible for issuing permits under the CWA Section 404 (33 U.S.C. 1344) 

(Section 404) and the Rivers and Harbors Act Section 14 (33 U.S.C. 408) (Section 408).6

 

6 CWA Section 404 sets forth a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into 

waters of the United States, including wetlands. USACE may only issue a Section 404 permit for a 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

10

USACE is required to comply with NEPA and issue its own NEPA decision before it can 

issue a permit under Section 404 or Section 408. 

As a first step in Project permitting, the Authority, FRA, USACE, and EPA executed a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU or NEPA/404/408 MOU) in November 2010. 

The MOU outlines a process to integrate the requirements of NEPA with the 

requirements of Section 404 and Section 408. The purpose of the MOU is to ensure the 

analysis underlying the EIS Documents for each California HST System section is

sufficient to support USACE’s Preliminary LEDPA determination and for USACE to issue 

a NEPA decision. 

Consistent with the MOU, FRA and the Authority initiated the CWA Section 404 

permitting process with USACE on August 3, 2011. As part of this process, FRA and the 

Authority prepared a Wetland Delineation Report (2011) and submitted it to USACE for 

issuance of a preliminary jurisdictional determination, which USACE issued on February 

5, 2013. A jurisdictional determination and issuance of a permit for the discharge of fill 

material into waters of the United States associated with construction of the Project will 

be part of the CWA Section 404 permit process administered by USACE.7

Pursuant to NEPA, Section 404, and Section 408, USACE and EPA issued letters 

concurring that the Preferred Alternative contains the preliminary LEDPA on December 

19, 2013. The Section 404 process continues with submittal of a permit application to 

USACE and development of a mitigation plan. The Section 408 process continues with 

USACE’s evaluation of potential Project impacts on flood protection facilities. USACE 

will issue a NEPA decision after a preliminary review of impacts on facilities under its 

jurisdiction. Subsequently, the Authority will submit permit applications for facilities 

under Section 408 jurisdiction to USACE.

2.4 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Concurrently with the NEPA process, FRA initiated the Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

Section 7 (16 U.S.C. 1536) consultation process, pursuant to 50 C.F.R. Part 402. Section 7 

of the Federal ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with USFWS and/or NMFS, 

depending on the type of species or habitat affected, to ensure that actions they 

authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of 

threatened or endangered fish, wildlife, or plant species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of designated critical habitat for any such species. Impacts 

associated with threatened and endangered species, including critical habitat, occupied 

 

project alternative that USACE determines is the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable 

Alternative (LEDPA). Section 408 permit decisions will be made for alteration/modification of 

completed Federal flood risk management facilities and any associated operation and maintenance, 

and real estate permissions or instruments (as applicable).

7 USACE has concurred that the overall Project purpose allows for a reasonable range of practicable 

alternatives to be analyzed and is acceptable as the basis for the USACE 404(b)(1) alternatives 

analysis. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

11

habitat, and suitable habitat for special-status species, is addressed through a 

coordination process that is outlined under Section 7 of the Federal ESA. If a project may 

have an impact on a threatened or endangered species, under Section 7 a study that 

describes the impacts, known as a Biological Assessment (BA), is required to be 

submitted to the appropriate agency with jurisdiction over the resource (USFWS, and/or 

NMFS). After the appropriate agency has accepted the BA, the agency will render a 

Biological Opinion (BO). A BO is the agency’s opinion as to whether a project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of an ESA-listed species or result in the destruction or 

adverse modification of a species’ critical habitat. 

Because the Project is likely to have an impact on threatened or endangered species, FRA 

prepared a BA for the Project and consulted with USFWS, as required. FRA’s informal 

and formal Section 7 consultation with USFWS has been ongoing and was instrumental 

in scoping the biological resource analysis for the EIS Documents, as well as for the BA. 

FRA developed and submitted a Draft BA to USFWS in June 2012, which evaluated 

direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project on Federally listed, threatened, 

endangered, or proposed listed species and their designated habitat. 

Following USFWS review and additional consultation and coordination, USFWS issued a 

BO for the Project on February 28, 2013. In the BO, USFWS concluded that the Project, 

as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed wildlife and 

plant species potentially occurring in the Project action area. Consistent with Section 7 

requirements, the BO also stipulates several reasonable and prudent conservation 

measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts.

Following issuance of the BO, the Authority and FRA made modifications to Project 

alignment alternatives which required reopening the formal Section 7 consultation with 

USFWS. A supplemental BA was submitted to the USFWS in October 2013. Following 

USFWS review and additional consultation and coordination, USFWS issued a new BO 

for the Project on April 1, 2014. The April 2014 BO also includes an incidental take 

statement authorizing activities associated with construction of the Project from the 

Fresno station to the Bakersfield station and is included as Appendix B.

3.0 Purpose and Need

As established in the Final Program EIS, the purpose of the California HST System is to 

provide a reliable high-speed electric-powered train system that links the major 

metropolitan areas of California, delivering predictable and consistent travel times. A 

further objective is to provide an interface with commercial airports, mass transit, and 

the highway network and to relieve capacity constraints of the existing transportation 

system as increases in intercity travel demand in California occur, in a manner sensitive 

to and protective of California’s unique natural resources.8

 

8 Authority and FRA. 2005. Final Program EIR/ EIS for the Proposed California HST System. 

Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC. August 2005.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

12

The purpose of this Project is to implement the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the

California HST System to provide the public with electric-powered high-speed rail 

service that provides predictable and consistent travel times between major urban 

centers and connectivity to airports, mass transit systems, and the highway network in 

the south San Joaquin Valley and to connect the northern and southern portions of the 

system. 

The capacity of California’s intercity transportation system, including the southern part 

of the San Joaquin Valley region, is insufficient to meet existing and future travel 

demands. The current and projected future system congestion will continue to result in 

deteriorating air quality, reduced reliability, and increased travel times. The current 

transportation system has not kept pace with the increase in population, economic 

activity, and tourism within the State, including in the southern part of the San Joaquin 

Valley region. The interstate highway system, commercial airports, and conventional 

passenger rail system serving the intercity travel market are operating at or near capacity 

and will require large public investments for maintenance and expansion to meet 

existing demand and future growth over the next 25 years and beyond. Moreover, the 

feasibility of expanding many major highways and key airports is uncertain; some 

needed expansions might be impractical or are constrained by physical, political, and 

other factors. The need for improvements to intercity travel in California, including 

intercity travel between the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley, the San Francisco 

Bay Area, Sacramento, and Southern California, relates to the following issues:

 Future growth in demand for intercity travel, including the growth in 

demand within the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley region.

 Capacity constraints that will increase congestion and travel delays, 

including those in the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley region.

 Unreliability of travel stemming from congestion and delays, weather 

conditions, accidents, and other factors that affect the quality of life and 

economic wellbeing of residents, businesses, and tourism in California, 

including the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley region.

 Reduced mobility as a result of increasing demand on limited modal 

connections between major airports, transit systems, and passenger rail in 

the State, including the southern part of the San Joaquin Valley region.

 Poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources and 

agricultural lands as a result of expanded highways and airports and 

urban and suburban development pressures, including those within the 

southern part of the San Joaquin Valley region.

4.0 Alternatives

This section summarizes the alternatives analysis process, the alternatives evaluated in 

the EIS Documents, and describes the Selected and Environmentally Preferable 

alternatives.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

13

4.1 Alternatives Analysis Process 

FRA and the Authority have undertaken an extensive, public screening process to 

identify and refine alternatives for study in the EIS Documents. The potential 

alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study were presented in the 

Preliminary Alternatives Analysis Report (June 2010) which incorporated the result of 

the Visalia-Tulare-Hanford Station Feasibility Study (August 2007) as well as three 

Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Reports published in September 2010, May 2011,

and December 2011. The alternatives analysis process is further summarized in 

Chapter 2 of the EIS Documents.

After the December 2011 Supplemental Alternatives Analysis Report, a series of 

meetings and outreach activities led to further refinement of the Bakersfield alternatives. 

The Authority and FRA, in cooperation with the affected stakeholders, developed a 

hybrid alternative alignment for the Bakersfield subsection to address substantive 

comments received during public and agency review of the Draft EIS. 

Several potential alternatives considered over the course of Project development either 

failed to adequately meet the project purpose, need, and objectives; failed to offer a 

substantial environmental advantage over one or more of the alternatives studied in the 

EIS Documents; or were deemed infeasible from a cost, technical, or engineering 

perspective, and therefore were eliminated from further analysis in the EIS Documents. 

4.2 Alternatives Considered in the EIS Documents

As a result of a comprehensive alternative analysis process, the EIS Documents included 

11 alignment alternatives: the BNSF, the Hanford West Bypass 1, the Hanford West 

Bypass 1 Modified, the Hanford West Bypass 2, the Hanford West Bypass 2 Modified, the 

Corcoran Elevated, the Corcoran Bypass, the Allensworth Bypass, the Wasco-Shafter 

Bypass, the Bakersfield South, and the Bakersfield Hybrid (Figure 3). The BNSF 

Alternative is a single continuous alignment that extends from the northern end of the 

Fresno Station tracks to the southern end of the Bakersfield station tracks. The 

additional 10 alternative alignments diverge from the BNSF Alternative at various 

locations between Fresno and Bakersfield. The No Action Alternative was also analyzed 

in the EIS Documents. The alternatives analyzed in the EIS Documents are the 

alternatives that FRA and the Authority identified as reasonable and feasible and capable 

of meeting the Project’s Purpose and Need. 

The Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS also document two station alternatives for 

Downtown Fresno (the Kern Street Station Alternative and Mariposa Street Station

Alternative), two station alternatives for the Kings/Tulare Regional Station in the vicinity 

of Hanford (the Kings/Tulare Regional Station-West and Kings/Tulare Regional StationEast), three station alternatives for Downtown Bakersfield (BNSF, Bakersfield South, 

and Bakersfield Hybrid station alternatives), and five HMF alternatives. All of these 

alternatives except the Kern Street Station Alternative in Fresno are described in detail 

in Chapter 2 of the Final EIS. The Kern Street Station Alternative is described in detail in 

Chapter 2 of the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS. This alternative was not included in 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

14

the Fresno to Bakersfield Final EIS because FRA and the Authority selected the Mariposa 

Street Station location in the ROD for the Merced to Fresno Section of the California 

HST System and there is no reason to reconsider that decision.

After publication of the Supplemental Draft EIS, several minor modifications were made 

to project alternatives. For example, the Final EIS reflects minor modifications to the 

locations of ancillary facilities, such as communication towers, power traction facilities, 

and access roads. In addition, as a result of continued consultation with local 

governments, road crossing designs were modified to meet local design standards. The 

Final EIS also includes minor modifications to the Hanford West Bypass alternative 

alignments in some locations to avoid the potential impacts that would result in a use of 

two Section 4(f) properties.

4.2.1 Alignment Alternatives

No Action Alternative

The No Action Alternative would result in no construction and no operation of the 

California HST System and FRA and the Authority rejected it in Tier 1 decisions. The No 

Action Alternative would not meet the Project’s purpose, need, and objectives. 

The No Action Alternative is the basis for comparison of the Project alternatives in the 

EIS Documents. The No Action Alternative represents the State’s transportation system 

(highway, air, bus, conventional rail) as it is currently and as it would be after 

implementation of programs or projects that are currently projected in regional 

transportation plans, have identified funds for implementation, and are expected to be in 

place by 2035, as well as any major planned land use changes. 

BNSF Alternative 

The BNSF Alternative begins at the north end of the Fresno Station tracks adjacent to the 

western side of the UPRR right-of-way in the vicinity of Amador Street, and continues

southeast through Fresno on the western side of the UPRR. South of East Jensen 

Avenue, the alignment curves to the south, joining the BNSF Railway corridor on its 

western side at East Malaga Avenue south of Fresno. The alignment crosses to the east 

side of the BNSF in the vicinity of East Conejo Avenue, and diverges from the BNSF 

Railway in a southeasterly direction to pass the City of Hanford to the east. The 

alignment rejoins the BNSF Railway right-of-way on its western side just north of 

Corcoran and continues south adjacent to the BNSF through Corcoran, Wasco, Shafter, 

and Bakersfield to the Project terminus in the vicinity of Baker Street. The alignment 

would cross to the east side of the BNSF south of Wasco. East of Baker Street in 

Bakersfield, the BNSF Alternative parallels Truxtun Avenue and Edison Highway to 

Oswell Street. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

15

Figure 3

Alternatives Considered in the EIS Document
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

16

The BNSF Alternative is approximately 114 miles long. Approximately 33 miles of the 

guideway would be on elevated structure where the alignment crosses major roadways, 

railroads, and water courses. The alignment would also be elevated through Wasco, 

Shafter, and Bakersfield to minimize disruption of the road network in these cities.

To accommodate the geometrics of the BNSF Alternative, approximately 5.5 miles of 

BNSF tracks in Fresno County and 2.5 miles of BNSF track in Bakersfield would be 

realigned. Approximately 8 miles of Santa Fe Way in Kern County would also be 

realigned to accommodate the BNSF Alternative.

Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative 

The Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative would parallel the BNSF Alternative from East 

Kamm Avenue to approximately East Elkhorn Avenue in Fresno County. At East Conejo 

Avenue where the BNSF Alternative crosses to the eastern side of the BNSF Railway 

tracks to pass the City of Hanford to the east, the Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative 

continues south on the western side of the BNSF Railway tracks. The Hanford West 

Bypass 1 would diverge from the BNSF Railway corridor just south of East Elkhorn 

Avenue and ascend onto an elevated structure just south of East Harlan Avenue, crossing 

over the Kings River complex and Murphy Slough, and passing the community of Laton 

to the west. The Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative would return to grade just north of 

Dover Avenue and continue southeasterly between the community of Armona to the west 

and the City of Hanford to the east on a southeasterly route toward the BNSF Railway 

corridor. In order to avoid a large dairy located at the intersection of Kent and 11th 

avenues, the Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative must travel to its west and deviate from 

the BNSF Railway corridor in the area of Kansas Avenue. The alignment would pass to 

the west of a large complex of BNSF Railway serviced grain silos and loading bays before 

it rejoins the BNSF Railway corridor adjacent to its western side at about Lansing 

Avenue. The alignment would continue on the western side of the BNSF Railway corridor 

and ascend onto another elevated structure, traveling over Cross Creek and special 

aquatic features that exist north of Corcoran. The alignment would return to grade just 

north of Nevada Avenue and would connect to the BNSF Alternative traveling through 

Corcoran at-grade, maintaining an alignment on the western side of the BNSF Railway 

corridor. The total length of the Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative is approximately 28 

miles. 

Hanford West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative 

The Hanford West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative would be the same as the Hanford 

West Bypass 1 Alternative from East Kamm Avenue to Flint Avenue in Fresno County. 

From there, where the Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative continues on a more 

southeasterly route, the Hanford West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative would continue 

south and would roughly parallel the Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative to the west until 

it converges with the Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative just north of Jackson Avenue in 

Kings County. This portion of the modified alignment travels to the west of properties at 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

17

13148 Grangeville Boulevard and 9860 13th Avenue in Kings County that are protected 

under Section 4(f). 

Hanford West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative would be below-grade between Grangeville 

Boulevard and Houston Avenue. The alignment would travel below-grade in the vicinity 

of the Kings-Tulare Regional Station – West Alternative in an open cut. 

Similar to Hanford West Bypass 1, the Hanford West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative 

would pass to the west of a large complex of BNSF Railway-serviced grain silos and 

loading bays before it rejoins the BNSF Railway corridor along its western side at about 

Lansing Avenue. The alignment would continue on the western side of the BNSF Railway 

corridor and ascend onto an elevated structure, traveling over Cross Creek and special 

aquatic features that exist north of Corcoran. This alignment would return to grade just 

north of Nevada Avenue and would connect to the BNSF Alternative and travel through 

Corcoran at-grade, maintaining an alignment on the western side of the BNSF Railway 

corridor. The Hanford West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative is about 28 miles long.

Hanford West Bypass 2 Alternative

The Hanford West Bypass 2 Alternative would be the same as the Hanford West Bypass 1 

Alternative from East Kamm Avenue in Fresno County to just north of Jackson Avenue

in Kings County. The Hanford West Bypass 2 Alternative would then curve away from 

the Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative to travel to the east of the dairy located at the 

intersection of Kent and 11th avenues toward the BNSF Railway corridor, approximately 

0.3 mile east of the Hanford West Bypass 1 route. The Hanford West Bypass 2 

Alternative would ascend over Kent Avenue and then cross over the BNSF Railway rightof-way to the northeast of the large complex of grain silos and loading bays located north 

of Kansas Avenue. The alignment would remain elevated for approximately 1.5 miles and 

parallel the BNSF Railway to the east, then cross over Kansas Avenue. Similar to the 

Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative, the Hanford West Bypass 2 Alternative would travel 

over Cross Creek and the special aquatic features located north of Corcoran and return to 

grade north of Nevada Avenue; however, the Hanford West Bypass 2 would be located on 

the eastern side of the BNSF Railway tracks in order to connect to either of the two 

Corcoran alternatives that would travel on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway corridor, 

the Corcoran Elevated Alternative or the Corcoran Bypass Alternative, described below. 

Like the Hanford West Bypass 1 Alternative, the total length of the Hanford West Bypass 

2 Alternative is approximately 28 miles.

Hanford West Bypass 2 Modified Alternative

The Hanford West Bypass 2 Modified Alternative would be the same as the Hanford 

West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative from East Kamm Avenue in Fresno County to 

approximately Iona Avenue in Kings County. In a manner similar to the route of the 

Hanford West Bypass 2 Alternative, the Hanford West Bypass 2 Modified Alternative 

would travel on an elevated structure over Kent Avenue, the BNSF Railway tracks, and 

Kansas Avenue, before returning to grade north of Lansing Avenue. This alternative 

would also travel over Cross Creek and the special aquatic features north of Corcoran, 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

18

and return to grade north of Nevada Avenue. Like the Hanford West Bypass 2 

Alternative, the Hanford West Bypass 2 Modified Alternative would connect with either 

the Corcoran Elevated or the Corcoran Bypass alternatives on the eastern side of the 

BNSF Railway railroad and SR 43. The Hanford West Bypass 2 Modified Alternative 

includes the same below-grade design between Grangeville Boulevard and Houston 

Avenue as the Hanford West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative. This alternative is also 

approximately 28 miles long.

Corcoran Elevated Alternative

The Corcoran Elevated Alternative would be the same as the corresponding section of the 

BNSF Alternative from approximately Nevada Avenue to Avenue 136, except that it 

would pass through Corcoran on the eastern side of the BNSF Railway right-of-way on 

an aerial structure. The aerial structure begins at Niles Avenue and returns to grade 

south of 4th Avenue. The total length of the Corcoran Elevated Alternative would be 

approximately 10 miles. Approximately 0.2 mile of BNSF Railway tracks would be 

realigned at Patterson Avenue for this alternative. The Corcoran Elevated Alternative is 

about 10 miles long.

Corcoran Bypass Alternative

The Corcoran Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative at Nevada 

Avenue and swing east of Corcoran, rejoining the BNSF Railway route at Avenue 136. 

The total length of the Corcoran Bypass is approximately 10 miles. Similar to the 

corresponding section of the BNSF Alternative, the majority of the Corcoran Bypass 

Alternative would be at-grade. However, an elevated structure would carry the HST over 

SR 43, the BNSF Railway, and the Tule River. 

Allensworth Bypass Alternative

The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would pass west of the BNSF Alternative beginning 

at Avenue 84 in Tulare County and rejoin the BNSF Alternative at Elmo Highway in Kern 

County, avoiding Allensworth Ecological Reserve and the Allensworth State Historic 

Park. The total length of the Allensworth Bypass Alternative is approximately 21 miles. 

The Allensworth Bypass Alternative would be constructed on an elevated structure where 

the alignment crosses Deer Creek and the Stoil railroad spur. 

Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative

The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would diverge from the BNSF Alternative 

between Taussig Avenue and Zachary Avenue in Kern County, crossing over to the 

eastern side of the BNSF Railway tracks and bypassing Wasco and Shafter to the east. 

The Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative would be at-grade except where it travels over 

Seventh Standard Road and the BNSF Railway to rejoin the BNSF Alternative. 

Approximately 4 miles of Santa Fe Way would be shifted to the west of the alternative 

alignment to accommodate the HST right-of-way, from approximately Galpin Street to 

south of Renfro Road. The total length of the Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative is about

21 miles.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

19

Bakersfield South Alternative

From the Rosedale Highway (SR 58) in Bakersfield, the Bakersfield South Alternative 

would parallel the BNSF Alternative at varying distances to the north. At Chester 

Avenue, the Bakersfield South Alternative curves south, and parallels California Avenue. 

As with the BNSF Alternative, the Bakersfield South Alternative would begin at-grade 

and become elevated starting at Country Breeze Place through Bakersfield to its 

terminus between Baker and Kings Streets just north of California Avenue. East of Kings 

Street, the alignment is located within the California Avenue right of way to Edison 

Highway, which it parallels to Oswell Street. The realignment of BNSF Railway tracks 

from Jomani Drive to Glenn Street in Bakersfield would be required, as it is for the BNSF 

Alternative. The Bakersfield South Alternative is approximately 12 miles long.

Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative

From Rosedale Highway (SR 58) in Bakersfield, the Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative 

would follow the Bakersfield South Alternative as it parallels the BNSF Alternative at 

varying distances to the north. At approximately A Street, the Bakersfield Hybrid 

Alternative diverges from the Bakersfield South Alternative, crosses over Chester Avenue 

and the BNSF right-of-way in a southeasterly direction, and then largely follows the 

BNSF Alternative to its terminus at Kings Street. East of Kings Street, the alignment 

crosses to the north side of Truxtun Avenue and runs parallel to the BNSF tracks and 

Edison Highway to Oswell Street. As with the BNSF and Bakersfield South alternatives, 

the Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative would begin at-grade and become elevated starting at 

Country Breeze Place through Bakersfield to Oswell Street. The realignment of BNSF 

Railway tracks from Jomani Drive to Glenn Street in Bakersfield would be required, as it 

is for both the BNSF and Bakersfield South alternatives. The Bakersfield Hybrid 

Alternative is approximately 12 miles long.

4.2.2 Station Alternatives

The Downtown Fresno and Bakersfield stations and the Kings/Tulare Region Station 

would include station plazas, drop-offs, a multimodal transit center, and parking 

facilities. The stations would include the platforms and associated building for passenger 

services and concessions, and back-of-house functions and access structures. 

Fresno Mariposa Street Station 

The Fresno Mariposa Street Station will be located in Downtown Fresno, less than one

half mile east of SR 99. The station would be centered on Mariposa Street and bordered 

by Fresno Street on the north, Tulare Street on the south, H Street on the east, and 

G Street on the west. The station building would be approximately 75,000 square feet, 

with a maximum height of approximately 64 feet. The two-level station would be atgrade with passenger access provided both east and west of the HST guideway and the 

UPRR tracks, which would run parallel with one another adjacent to the station. The first 

level would contain the public concourse, passenger service areas, and station and 

operation offices. The second level would include the mezzanine, a pedestrian 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

20

overcrossing above the HST guideway and the UPRR railway tracks, and an additional 

public concourse area. Entrances would be located at both G and H Streets. The eastern 

entrance would be at the intersection of H Street and Mariposa Street, with platform 

access provided via the pedestrian overcrossing. This entrance would provide a “front 

door” connection with Downtown Fresno on an axis that also includes the County 

Courthouse and City Hall several blocks to the east. The main western entrance would be 

located at G Street and Mariposa Street.

The Mariposa Street Station Alternative includes the potential for up to three parking 

structures occupying a total of 5.5 acres. Two of the three potential parking structures 

would each sit on two acres, and each would have a capacity of approximately 1,500 cars. 

The third parking structure would have a smaller footprint (1.5 acres), with five levels 

and a capacity of approximately 1,100 cars. An additional two-acre surface parking lot 

would provide approximately 300 parking spaces. Currently, Downtown Fresno has a 

large amount of excess public parking within a mile of the proposed HST station. Based 

on discussions with the City of Fresno, the balance of spaces needed to satisfy the 

estimated year 20359 parking demand (7,400 total spaces) would be accommodated by 

existing public spaces, without the need for additional parking lots or structures.

Kings/Tulare Regional Station – East Alternative

The Kings/Tulare Regional Station–East Alternative would be located east of SR 43 

(Avenue 8) and north of the San Joaquin Valley Railroad on the BNSF Alternative. The 

station building would be approximately 40,000 square feet with a maximum height of 

approximately 75 feet. The entire site would be approximately 25 acres, including 8 acres 

designated for the station, bus bays, short-term parking, and kiss-and-ride areas. An 

additional approximately 17.25 acres would support a surface parking lot with 

approximately 2,280 spaces. The balance of parking spaces necessary to meet the 2035 

parking demand (2,800 total spaces) would be accommodated in downtown Hanford, 

Visalia, and/or Tulare, with local transit or shuttle services connecting with the station. 

Reducing the number of parking spaces provided at the station would allow for more 

open space areas, discourage growth at the station, encourage revitalization of the 

downtowns of Hanford, Visalia, and/or Tulare, and contain the development footprint of 

the station. Location of station parking in downtown areas would be identified in 

consultation with local communities to avoid traffic congestion and may require 

additional environmental review.

Kings/Tulare Regional Station – West Alternative

The Kings/Tulare Regional Station–West Alternative would be located east of 13th 

Avenue and north of the San Joaquin Valley Railroad on the Hanford West Bypass 1 and 

2 alternatives. The station would be located either at-grade or below-grade depending on 

which Hanford West Bypass alignment is chosen. 

 

9 During Phase 2 of the California HST System (see Section 1.1).
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

21

The at-grade Kings/Tulare Regional Station–West Alternative would be located along 

either the Hanford West Bypass 1 or 2 alternatives and would include a station building 

of approximately 100,000 square feet with a maximum height of approximately 36 feet. 

The entire site would be approximately 48 acres, including 6 acres designated for the 

station, bus bays, short-term parking, and kiss-and-ride areas. Approximately 5 acres 

would support a surface parking lot with approximately 700 spaces. An additional 3.5 

acres would support two parking structures with a combined parking capacity of 2,100 

spaces.

The below-grade Kings/Tulare Regional Station–West Alternative would be located 

along either the Hanford West Bypass 1 or 2 Modified alternatives and would include a 

station building of approximately the same size and height as the above-grade option. 

The below-grade station site would include the same components as the at-grade station 

on the same number of acres; however, the station platform would be located belowgrade instead of at ground level. Approximately 4 acres would support a surface parking 

lot with approximately 600 spaces and an additional 4 acres would support two parking 

structures with a combined parking capacity of 2,200 spaces.

Bakersfield Station – North Alternative

The Bakersfield Station–North Alternative would be located at the corner of Truxtun and 

Union Avenue/SR 204 on the BNSF Alternative. This station option corresponds to the 

BNSF alignment alternative through the City of Bakersfield. Access to the site would be 

from Truxtun Avenue, Union Avenue, and S Street. Two new boulevards would be built 

from Union Avenue and S Street to access the station and the supporting facilities. The 

main entrance would be located on the northern end of the site. The three-level station 

building would be 52,000 square feet, with a maximum height of approximately 95 feet. 

The first level would house station operation offices and would also accommodate other 

trains running along the BNSF Railway line. The second level would include the 

mezzanine; the platforms and guideway would pass through the third level. 

The entire site would consist of 19 acres, with 11.5 acres designated for the station, bus 

transit center, short-term parking, and kiss-and-ride areas. An additional 7.5 acres 

would house two parking structures, one with a planned capacity of approximately 1,500 

cars, and the other with a capacity of approximately 3,000 cars. In addition, another 175 

spaces would be provided in surface lots. The balance of the supply necessary to 

accommodate the full 2035 parking demand (8,100 total spaces) would be provided 

through use of underutilized facilities around the station and in Downtown Bakersfield. 

Identification of these additional spaces would be coordinated with the City of 

Bakersfield as a part of a comprehensive parking strategy. Additional environmental 

review may be necessary as parking needs are identified for full system operations. 

Under this alternative, the station building would be located at the western end of the 

parcel footprint. The bus transit center and the smaller of the two parking structures (2.5 

acres) would be north of the HST tracks. The BNSF Railway track runs through the 

station site. The HST tracks would be above the BNSF Railway tracks.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

22

Bakersfield Station – South Alternative

The Bakersfield Station–South Alternative would be in the same area as the North 

Station Alternative, but would be situated along Union and California avenues on the 

Bakersfield South Alternative, just south of the BNSF Railway right-of-way. This station

option corresponds to the BNSF-South alignment alternative through the City of 

Bakersfield. The two-level station building would be approximately 51,000 square feet, 

with a maximum height of approximately 95 feet. The first floor would house the 

concourse, and the platforms and guideway would be on the second floor. 

The entire site would be 20 acres, with 15 acres designated for the station, bus transit 

center, short-term parking, and kiss-and-ride areas. Five of the 20 acres would support 

one six-level parking structure with a capacity of approximately 4,500 cars. In addition, 

another 500 spaces would be provided in surface lots. As with the Bakersfield Station–

North Alternative, the balance of the supply necessary to accommodate the full 2035 

parking demand (8,100 total spaces) would be identified as a part of a comprehensive 

parking strategy in coordination with the City of Bakersfield, and may require additional 

environmental review. Access to the station site would be from two new boulevards: one 

branching off from California Avenue, and the other from Union Avenue.

Bakersfield Station – Hybrid Alternative

The Bakersfield Station–Hybrid Alternative would be in the same area as the North and 

South Station alternatives, and would be located at the corner of Truxtun and Union 

Avenue/SR 204 on the Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative. This station option corresponds 

to the BNSF Hybrid alignment alternative through the City of Bakersfield. The station 

design includes an approximately 57,000-square-foot main station building and an 

approximately 5,500-square-foot entry concourse located north of the BNSF Railway 

right-of-way. The station building would have two levels with a maximum height of 

approximately 95 feet. The first floor would house the concourse, and the platforms and 

guideway would be on the second floor. Additionally, a pedestrian overcrossing would 

connect the main station building to the north entry concourse across the BNSF right-ofway.

The entire site would be approximately 24 acres, with 15 acres designated for the station, 

bus transit center, short-term parking, and kiss-and-ride areas. Approximately 4.5 of the 

24 acres would support 3 parking structures with a total capacity of approximately 4,500 

cars. Each parking structure would be 7 levels; one with a planned capacity of 1,750 cars, 

another with a capacity of 1,315 cars, and the third with a planned capacity of 1,435 cars. 

An additional 460 parking spaces would be provided in surface lots covering a total of 

approximately 4.5 acres of the station site. As with the Bakersfield Station–North and 

Bakersfield Station–South alternatives, the balance of the supply needed to 

accommodate the full 2035 parking demand (8,100 total spaces) would be identified as a 

part of a comprehensive parking strategy developed in coordination with the City of 

Bakersfield. Access to the station site would be from Truxtun Avenue and Union Avenue 

as well as Hayden Court. Under this alternative, the BNSF Railway track would run 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

23

through the station site, and the main station building and majority of the station 

facilities would be sited south of the BNSF Railway right-of-way.

4.2.3 Heavy Maintenance Facility

One HMF site will be required for operation of the entire HST System. The HMF, likely 

to be located within the Central Valley, would serve two functions: (1) to support train 

arrival, assembly, testing, and commissioning to operations; and (2) to become the 

State’s system-wide heavy maintenance workshop. It is anticipated that permanent 

emergency standby generators would be located at the HMF. The EIS Documents 

evaluated five different locations for the HMF site (as shown in Figure 3):

• Fresno Works-Fresno, accessible by all HST alternatives.

• Kings County-Hanford, accessible along the BNSF Alternative. 

• Kern Council of Governments-Wasco, accessible along the BNSF and WascoShafter Bypass alternatives.

• Kern Council of Governments-Shafter East, accessible along the Wasco-Shafter 

Bypass.

• Kern Council of Governments-Shafter West, accessible along the BNSF 

Alternative.

The EIS Documents contain a thorough analysis of the potential impacts of the HMF 

alternatives in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. As discussed in the Final EIS, the most 

suitable location is in one of the section of the California HST System in the Central San 

Joaquin Valley. However, only one HMF site will be required for full California HST 

System operations. It is therefore premature to select an HMF site at this time. 

Therefore, at this time FRA is not selecting any of the HMF alternatives identified and 

analyzed in the EIS Documents in this ROD.

4.3 Method of Identifying a Complete Alignment

The alternative alignments considered for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section include eight 

alternatives in the more rural area between Fresno and Bakersfield and three 

alternatives in Bakersfield. Any of 108 distinct combinations of these alternatives could 

comprise the complete alignment from Fresno to Bakersfield. 

Except in the Hanford and Corcoran areas, the selection of an alignment in any one area 

where two or more alternatives are under consideration (e.g., Allensworth, WascoShafter, and Bakersfield) is independent of the selection of an alignment in any of the 

other areas along the Fresno to Bakersfield corridor. For example, the selection of the 

BNSF Alternative or the Allensworth Bypass Alternative in the Allensworth area does not 

influence the selection of the BNSF Alternative or the Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative

in the Wasco-Shafter area. The one exception to this is the connection of the Hanford 

West Bypass alternatives to the Corcoran alternatives. In that case, the Hanford West 

Bypass 2 alternatives connect to the Corcoran Bypass and the Corcoran Elevated 

alternatives, and the Hanford West Bypass 1 alternatives connect to the BNSF 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

24

Alternative through Corcoran. It was necessary to have two slightly different Hanford 

West Bypass alignments to connect to all of the Corcoran alternatives because of the 

geometric constraints of an HST alignment. Therefore, evaluation of alternative 

alignments in the Hanford and Corcoran areas had to be done concurrently. Similarly, 

the Kings/Tulare Regional Station Alternatives and the Bakersfield Station Alternatives 

are dependent on the associated alignment alternative and the evaluation of alignment 

and station had to be done concurrently. Environmental effects of a station among the 

alternative station sites were similar.

Because the selection of an alignment alternative in the Hanford-Corcoran, Allensworth, 

Wasco-Shafter, and Bakersfield areas were independent of each other, alternatives 

within each of these areas were evaluated and selected independently. In that way, the 

FRA and Authority identified the Preferred Alternative from north to south by 

geographic area instead of comparing 108 separate alternatives that each covered the 

entire Fresno to Bakersfield Section. 

4.4 Selected Alternative

The selected alternative consists of portions of the BNSF Alternative with the 

Kings/Tulare – East Station in combination with the Corcoran Bypass, Allensworth 

Bypass, Bakersfield Hybrid, and the Bakersfield Hybrid Station alternatives. Chapter 7 of 

the Final EIS identified this alternative as the preferred north-south alignment for the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section, as shown in Figure 1. In identifying a preferred northsouth alignment alternative, FRA was guided by the project purpose and need, the 

analysis of potential impacts, consultation with resource agencies, and public input. FRA 

also considered the Authority’s project objectives, which are described further in the 

Final EIS Chapter 1. These project objectives are required pursuant to CEQA and help 

guide the Authority’s decision making process. Since FRA and the Authority are joint 

lead agencies on this EIR/EIS, the project objectives were considered throughout the 

development of the EIR/EIS.

FRA’s decision reflects the balancing of different considerations including 

environmental, technical, economic, operational, as well as community and other 

stakeholder input. FRA and the Authority carefully considered the potential adverse and 

beneficial environmental and community impacts that could result from the selection of 

the various alternatives. This decision also reflects the significant outreach and 

consultation with local stakeholders and communities conducted by the agencies. 

Consistent with the NEPA/404/408 MOU, FRA also considered permitting criteria in 

identifying the selected alternative. These permitting considerations are consistent with 

the criteria used in the Section 404(b)(1) implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. 230–233), 

including minimizing impacts on waters of the United States and other sensitive 

environmental resources. In addition, FRA’s decision is consistent with its obligation 

under Section 4(f) to protect land from publicly owned parks, recreational areas, wildlife 

and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites on public or private land. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

25

The BNSF Alternative through Hanford (Hanford East Alternative) with the

Kings/Tulare Regional Station – East and the Corcoran Bypass are selected because they 

are more compatible with the long-range development planning for the City of Hanford 

and the region as a whole than any other combination of alternative alignments, which 

would result in more options for regional development, and because they are closer to 

Tulare and Visalia and are likely to capture a larger regional population of travelers. In 

addition, the BNSF and Corcoran Bypass alternatives would result in slightly fewer 

potential impacts on the natural environment, and the community impacts are similar in 

both intensity and severity in Hanford and Corcoran when compared to the other 

alignment alternatives. FRA has also determined that the BNSF Alternative through 

Hanford (Hanford East Alternative) would result in the least overall harm to properties 

protected by Section 4(f). 

The Allensworth Bypass is selected because it would result in fewer impacts to both the 

natural environment (e.g., wetlands and special-status species habitat) and communities

than the BNSF Alternative does in the Allensworth area. It also avoids the use of two 

properties protected under Section 4(f). 

Because of the similarities of the impacts to natural resources between the BNSF 

Alternative and the Wasco-Shafter Bypass Alternative in the Wasco/Shafter area and the 

possibility to address community impacts through mitigation, the FRA selected the 

BNSF Alternative through Wasco and Shafter. FRA and the Authority also considered 

the strong regional interests, consistency with the long-term development plans in 

Shafter, and the cost uncertainties associated with constructing the Project in an existing 

and rapidly expanding oil field.

The Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative with the Bakersfield Station-Hybrid station 

alternative is selected because they would impact the fewest acres of waters of the U.S. 

when compared with the BNSF Alternative (Bakersfield North) and because it would 

result in fewer community impacts including fewer overall displacements and fewer 

impacts to religious facilities when compared with both the BNSF Alternative 

(Bakersfield North) and Bakersfield South Alternative. The FRA and Authority

developed the Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative in response to community concerns 

received after publication of the Draft EIS and after proactive engagement with the 

communities to solicit input and to combine the best of the BNSF Alternative and the 

Bakersfield South Alternative. 

Consistent with the purpose and need to construct, operate, and maintain an electricpowered high-speed train system, the selected alternative’s performance is comparable 

to if not better than other alternatives. To meet the legislated travel time requirement for 

express trains between San Francisco and Los Angeles, system modeling indicates that 

travel time between Fresno and Bakersfield should be no more than 37 minutes. The 

selected alternative would take 34 minutes and 5 seconds to travel between Fresno and 

Bakersfield. This travel time is 2 minutes and 55 seconds faster than the maximum 

modeled travel time of alternatives considered between Fresno Station and Bakersfield 

Station. In comparison, this would be 1 minute and 1 second more than the travel time 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

26

for the BNSF Alternative. The selected alternative would add an additional minute to the 

Bakersfield to Palmdale Section because of the geometric curves in the Bakersfield 

Hybrid portion of the alignment. The HST would operate at high speeds (up to 220 

miles per hour) throughout the Fresno to Bakersfield Section except in Bakersfield. The 

selected alternative (Bakersfield Hybrid) would operate at a speed of 120 miles per hour 

through Bakersfield. While the selected alternative would require reduced speeds 

through Bakersfield, it provides the advantage of avoiding the Bakersfield High School 

campus, and reduces the number of religious facilities and homes impacted in central 

and east Bakersfield by the BNSF and Bakersfield South alternatives. It also avoids a 4(f) 

resource along the Bakersfield South alternative.

As a result of the analyses in the EIS Documents as well as NEPA/404/408 MOU

documentation, USACE and EPA concurred (on December 19, 2013,10) that the selected 

alternative contains the preliminary LEDPA, consistent with USACE’s permit program 

(33 C.F.R. Parts 320–331) and EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 C.F.R. Part 230).

Overall, the selected alternative best meets the Project’s purpose and need and, after the 

implementation of Project design features and mitigation, appropriately balances the 

potential impacts on the environment, farmland, communities and community facilities. 

A summary of the environmental effects associated with the selected alternative is 

provided in Section 5.0, below. The selected alternative also best meets the regulatory 

and permitting criteria under Sections 404 and 408.

4.5 Environmentally Preferable Alternative 

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that an agency identify the alternative or 

alternatives considered to be environmentally preferable, which is defined as “the 

alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the 

NEPA, Section 101” (40 C.F.R. 1505.2). This means the alternative that causes the least 

damage to the physical environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, 

preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

Considering these factors, FRA identifies the BNSF Alternative in combination with the 

Corcoran Bypass, Allensworth Bypass, and Bakersfield Hybrid alternatives, with the 

corresponding Kings/Tulare Regional Station – East and Bakersfield Hybrid Station (the

selected alternative) as environmentally preferable. FRA considered all action 

alternatives, as well as the No Action Alternative, and weighed and balanced the physical 

environmental effects associated with the action alternatives as well as those associated 

with the No Action Alternative. Based on the analysis in the EIS, FRA determined that 

the adverse environmental effects associated with the selected alternative are less 

substantial than the consequences associated with the No Action Alternative in terms of 

air quality, energy, and traffic. 

The selected alternative has relatively low community, farmland, and biological effects, 

including lower impacts on jurisdictional wetlands when compared to the other potential 

 

10USACE, 2013 and EPA, 2013.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

27

action alternatives. The selected alternative would result in fewer effects on wetlands 

and riparian habitat than other action alternatives. It would also affect fewer key 

community facilities and religious facilities, and would displace fewer residential units 

and commercial and industrial businesses than other action alternatives. The selected

alternative would have similar effects to aspects of the physical environment such as 

noise and air quality, as other action alternatives and the effects of alternative station 

sites would be similar. Overall, in balancing the effects on natural and community 

resources, the selected alternative will result in the fewest impacts to the human and 

natural environment and is environmentally preferable. In addition, consistent with the 

CWA Section 404 and NEPA integration process, of the 108 alignment alternatives, the 

selected alternative contains the preliminary LEDPA as indicated by the USACE in their 

letter dated December 19, 2013. 

5.0 Summary of Potential Effects 

Construction and operation of the selected alternative has the potential to affect a variety 

of natural and social resources. Some impacts will be beneficial, others will be adverse. 

Those impacts that are adverse can be further categorized as impacts that are significant 

and those that are not significant. Under NEPA, determining the significance of an 

impact requires consideration of both context and intensity.11 

To fully understand the potential range of impacts of the selected alternative, the Final 

EIS analyzed all potential impacts resulting from construction and operation of the HST. 

A full discussion of the potential impacts of the selected alternative, organized by 

resource area, can be found in Chapter 3 of the Final EIS. Some potential adverse 

impacts would be significant were it not for implementation of mitigation measures that 

effectively avoid or minimize the impact. Other impacts would be significant even after 

mitigation measures are implemented. Finally, some impacts of the selected alternative 

would be beneficial. The selected alternative is not anticipated to have significant 

impacts in the following resource areas: electromagnetic fields and electromagnetic 

interference; public utilities and energy; hydrology and water resources; geology, soils, 

and seismicity; hazardous materials and waste; and station planning, land use, and 

development. In determining that the selected alternative will not result in significant 

impacts on these resources, implementation of project design features and best 

management practices (BMP) are presumed and will be required as part of Project 

implementation as described further in Section 6.0. FRA considered the above resource 

area effects in reaching its decision. 

The following sections summarize the significant adverse impacts, the adverse impacts 

that would be significant if not for the implementation of mitigation, and the beneficial 

impacts that may occur with construction and operation of the selected alternative. 

 

11 The context of an impact is the setting of the affected environment in which the impact occurs. 

Intensity refers to the severity of the impact, which includes consideration of the type, quality, and 

sensitivity of the resource involved, as well as the location, extent, and duration of the effect (40 

C.F.R. 1508.27).
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

28

5.1 Transportation

The selected alternative will benefit the regional transportation system by diverting 

intercity trips from the regional roadway system and commercial air trips to high-speed 

rail. Diverting trips to high-speed rail will reduce the overall number of vehicle trips on 

the regional roadway system, improve future levels of service, and reduce overall vehicle 

miles traveled. 

However, the selected alternative will cause adverse traffic impacts in congested urban 

areas due to increased traffic around HST stations and road closures. HST stations in 

Fresno, Bakersfield, and the Hanford area and related road closures in Fresno will 

increase traffic at local roadways and intersections nearby, reducing acceptable levels of 

service in those locations. Traffic mitigation measures to improve operations at key 

intersection and roadway segments will include widening lanes, modifying signals, 

adding lanes, and restriping. Although all of these impacts will be reduced with the 

implementation of such measures, the selected alternative may result in extending the 

duration of peak periods of congestion in already-congested urban areas, and these 

impacts are considered significant.

5.2 Air Quality and Climate Change

Operation of the HST will benefit statewide and regional air quality. The HST will result 

in a permanent net benefit to air quality because it will lower emissions of mobile source 

air toxics, greenhouse gases, volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx), 

sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 

microns and 25 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5) by diverting trips from modes 

with higher emissions (e.g. commercial air flights and automobile trips) to high-speed 

rail, which has lower emissions.

Construction of the HST will result in temporary air quality impacts. Construction 

emissions of VOCs and NOx are expected to cause or contribute substantially to 

violations of air quality standards in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin (SJVAB). The 

Final EIS has identified a mitigation measure to offset these construction related air 

impacts. Specifically, the Authority will mitigate construction emissions in the SJVAB by 

providing funds for the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD)

Emission Reduction Incentive Program12 to fund grants for projects that achieve 

emission reductions, thus offsetting impacts on air quality related to the selected 

alternative. Purchase of offset emissions through a Voluntary Emission Reduction 

Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD for these pollutants will reduce construction 

emission impacts in the SJVAB to less than significant. 

FRA also issued a Draft General Conformity Determination with the Final EIS for public 

review and comment. The Final General Conformity Determination is included with this 

ROD as Attachment E.

 

12 SJVAPCD. 2011. Emission Reduction Incentive Program. Available at 

www.valleyair.org/Grant_Programs/GrantPrograms.htm. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

29

5.3 Noise

The selected alternative, without mitigation, will cause severe noise impacts for up to 

3,346 sensitive receivers, such as residences. Sound barriers will eliminate 70% of these 

significant noise effects. However, 1,096 receivers are located outside of areas where 

barriers can be effective, or a sound barrier will not fully eliminate the severe noise 

impact. 

With full implementation of the Proposed California HST Project Noise and Vibration 

Mitigation Guidelines,13 most significant noise impacts will be eliminated. However, 

where sound barriers are used, even with the implementation of such mitigation, 

significant noise effects will remain for some receivers because they are located outside 

of the area where the barrier will be fully effective or the sound barrier will not fully 

mitigate the effect (i.e., noise is reduced by five decibels but would still be significant). 

Furthermore, significant noise effects will remain for receivers mitigated only with 

indoor sound insulation or with implementation of noise easements. 

5.4 Public Utilities and Energy

The statewide and regional impact on energy use from operation of the HST will be 

beneficial. While the HST System will require electricity to operate, it will result in a 

permanent net reduction in energy use because it will divert trips from transportation 

modes with higher energy use (e.g. commercial air flights and automobiles) to highspeed rail, which has lower energy use. The selected alternative will not cause any 

significant adverse impacts on public utilities or energy.

5.5 Biological Resources and Wetlands

The selected alternative will not cause significant impacts on biological resources or 

wetlands after mitigation measures are implemented. The selected alternative will have 

no impacts on critical habitat. Other resource impacts that would be significant prior to 

mitigation, and the mitigation measures identified to reduce impacts to less than 

significant, are described below.

Riparian habitat will be temporarily and permanently affected during construction of 

the selected alternative. Restoration of riparian habitat shortly after construction 

disturbance will mitigate construction period impacts to less than significant. The 

Authority will compensate for permanent impacts on riparian habitat, determined in 

consultation with the appropriate agencies (e.g., California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife [CDFW]), by restoring nearby riparian areas through permittee-responsible

compensatory mitigation. With this mitigation permanent impacts on riparian habitat

will be less than significant.

 

13 Authority and FRA. 2012. Proposed California HST Project Noise and Vibration Mitigation 

Guidelines. Appendix 3.4-A of the California HST Merced to Fresno Section Final Project EIR/EIS. 

Volume II: Technical Appendices. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, D.C. April 2012.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

30

The selected alternative may result in an incremental regional effect and measureable 

adverse loss of special-status plant species populations. Measures to mitigate 

impacts on special-status plant species include developing and implementing a plan to 

address monitoring, salvage, relocation, and propagation of special-status plant species 

during and after construction; the purchase of credits from an existing mitigation bank;

and/or conducting a special-status plant re-establishment program within the same 

watershed or in proximity to the impact area. Mitigation measures and compliance with 

the Section 7 BO and the CDFW Incidental Take Permit will mitigate temporary and

permanent impacts on special-status plant species to less than significant. 

The selected alternative may result in an incremental regional effect and measurable 

adverse loss of jurisdictional waters and wetlands. Measures to mitigate impacts 

on jurisdictional waters and wetlands include monitoring of construction impacts, 

restoration of disturbed areas after construction, compensation for permanent impacts, 

and implementation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Mitigation measures 

and compliance with the CWA, regulatory agency permit conditions, and the CDFW 

Streambed Alteration Agreement (pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Fish and 

Game Code) will mitigate impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands to less than 

significant both temporarily during the construction period and permanently.

The selected alternative will result in an incremental regional effect and measurable 

adverse loss of special-status wildlife species populations. Measures to mitigate 

impacts on special-status wildlife populations include implementation of a Habitat 

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, submittal of post-construction compliance reports to 

regulatory agencies, and compensation through habitat replacement or monetary 

contributions, among others. Mitigation measures and compliance with the Section 7 BO 

and the CDFW Incidental Take Permit will mitigate impacts on special-status wildlife

species to less than significant temporarily during the construction period and 

permanently.

The selected alternative will result in an incremental regional effect and measurable 

adverse effect on wildlife movement corridors. Project design elements would 

reduce effects of the Project on wildlife movement corridors, and the implementation of 

wildlife crossings of the selected alignment would further lessen Project effects. Because 

potential compensatory mitigation sites are located in close proximity to the Project, 

known wildlife corridors and linkages are located in areas identified in USFWS Recovery 

Plans (Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, and Vernal Pool), and are located in 

designated critical habitat for California tiger salamander and vernal pool branchiopod 

species; the preservation of these sites in perpetuity (or other sites located in close 

proximity to the Project and within movement corridors), along with appropriate longterm management, will reduce the permanent effect on regional wildlife movement to 

less than significant.
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

31

5.6 Hydrology and Water Resources

Currently, groundwater supports many existing water uses along the selected alternative. 

However, the selected alternative will convert water-using properties (e.g., agricultural 

production properties) to a transportation use and as a result will reduce the overall 

regional groundwater drawdown in the Central Valley. This overall reduction will result 

in a beneficial effect to groundwater supplies in the region. The selected alternative will 

not cause any significant adverse impacts on hydrology or water resources.

5.7 Safety and Security

Operating on a fully grade-separated, dedicated track alignment, using contemporary 

safety, signaling, and automatic train control systems, the HST System, including the 

selected alternative, would provide a safe and reliable means of intercity travel. Design of 

the system also would avoid conflicts with other vehicles, existing rail systems,

pedestrians, and bicyclists and would allow the trains to operate year-round under 

different weather conditions. The selected alternative will also improve safety where 

existing at-grade railroad crossings are replaced with grade-separated crossings, 

resulting in a beneficial effect on safety at railroad crossings in local communities. 

The demand for local emergency services may increase in the Downtown Fresno Station, 

Kings/Tulare Regional Station, and Downtown Bakersfield Station areas due to the 

number of additional people present at the stations. The Authority will monitor service 

levels in the vicinity of the stations to establish baseline service demands and will fund 

the Authority’s fair share of services above the average baseline service demand level, 

based on projected passenger use. The resulting impact on emergency providers will be 

less than significant. 

5.8 Socioeconomics, Communities, and Environmental 

Justice

Project construction will temporarily benefit regional economic conditions through

increased sales tax revenues and job creation due to Project spending. Jobs will be 

created through construction of the selected alternative and through other sectors that 

provide materials, equipment, and services. Construction will also benefit employment 

for low-income and minority communities (also called communities of concern) with the 

implementation of mitigation measures such as special recruitment, training, and other 

employment programs. 

Permanent benefits include improved mobility within the region, improved traffic 

conditions on freeways, improvements in regional air quality, new employment 

opportunities, and increased tax revenues in the region. Benefits of the selected

alternative will likely accrue to a greater degree in minority and low-income 

communities because they comprise a large percentage of the population in the Project 

area. The Final EIS also contained an analysis of the potential impacts to low-income 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

32

and minority populations. Further detail on the results of that analysis is included in 

Section 9.7 - Environmental Justice Findings. 

5.9 Station Planning, Land Use, and Development 

The selected alternative will result in beneficial effects on regional land use and 

development. Increased density around the HST stations will minimize sprawl, promote 

transit-oriented development, and revitalize the downtown areas of Fresno and 

Bakersfield. Concentrated and infill development in these urban areas may also assist in 

preserving agricultural lands and natural resources in the region. The selected

alternative will fulfill local and regional plans that promote infill and redevelopment 

opportunities and encourage reduced automobile dependency and the use of alternative 

transportation modes. The selected alternative will not cause significant adverse impacts 

on land use or development.

5.10 Agricultural Lands

The selected alternative will convert 3,474 acres of important farmland to a 

transportation use, causing significant loss of farmland in the Project area. Mitigation 

measures will preserve land for agriculture and consolidate remnant parcels so that they 

remain in agricultural production. To support farmland preservation, the Authority will

enter into a contract with the California Department of Conservation (DOC) to provide 

agricultural land mitigation services. On behalf of the Authority, DOC’s California 

Farmland Conservancy Program will establish permanent agricultural conservation 

easements on land of similar to that affected by the selected alternative. The new 

conservation easements will prevent the future loss of currently unprotected farmland to 

development. However, these mitigation measures will not create new farmland nor will 

they replace the converted farmland in an area of high production agricultural soils that 

are threatened by development encroachment. Therefore, the farmland loss is 

considered a significant impact. 

5.11 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

The selected alternative will cause noise and visual effects to Kern River Parkway, Mill 

Creek Linear Park, McMurtrey Aquatic Center, and the Amtrak Station playground in 

Bakersfield. The intensity of these effects would remain substantial even with mitigation. 

However, these park resources are located in the local urbanized area of Downtown 

Bakersfield, along the existing BNSF/Amtrak rail corridors. Therefore, the parks are 

already subject to noise and visual impacts consistent with the urbanized area and the 

existing freight and passenger rail service. Considering both the intensity and context of 

the impacts on these recreational resources, the overall impact would not be significant. 

As described in the Final EIS, as part of Project implementation the Authority will 

implement a number of mitigation measures and Project Design Features to reduce 

potential impacts to Park resources. For example, during final design of the elevated 

guideways, the Authority will continue its consultation with local jurisdictions to fit the 

elevated guideways appropriately with the visual context of the adjacent areas. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

33

The selected alternative may result in an increased use of the Amtrak Station 

playground. If this increased use results in deterioration of the playground, the 

Authority will mitigate such impacts by providing the appropriate share of funding for

additional maintenance, labor, and repairs for the playground.

5.12 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

The HST stations will improve visual quality in the Fresno and Bakersfield downtown 

urban centers. The architecture of the HST stations and landscape improvements 

proximate to the stations will enhance visual quality. Indirect impacts of the HST 

stations could reach beyond the immediate station area and increase the overall visual 

quality of the larger downtown areas, which are areas of high viewer sensitivity in which 

the visual changes will be long in duration. These impacts will create beneficial visual 

effects in downtown Fresno and Bakersfield.

The selected alternative will create significant adverse visual effects in Wasco, Shafter, 

Bakersfield, and certain rural areas where elevated HST structures and road

overcrossings of the HST will remove orchards and fields, block views, and degrade the 

visual quality in the area. Mitigation measures such as planting trees and other 

vegetation to screen the structures will reduce the visual effect, but the change will 

remain significant. 

5.13 Cultural and Paleontological Resources 

The selected alternative is not anticipated to have significant adverse impacts on 

archeological resources; however, it may affect archaeological sites that are presently 

unknown or undiscovered. Mitigation measures, such as halting construction if a 

previously undiscovered archaeological site is revealed, conducting archaeological 

monitoring near identified or sensitive sites, and planning intentional site burial and 

preservation in place if avoidance is not feasible, will reduce impacts to less than 

significant. 

The selected alternative will physically affect built environment cultural resources, 

resulting in significant impacts on historic properties. Even with treatment measures

such as relocating historic structures, documenting historic resources, preparing 

structural reports, creating interpretive exhibits, and planning to prepare for inadvertent 

damage, the impacts will remain significant.

Destruction of unidentified fossil deposits during construction could result in significant 

impacts on paleontological resources without mitigation. Mitigation measures such as 

monitoring, implementing a paleontological plan, and halting construction when 

paleontological resources are found will reduce impacts to less than significant. 

6.0 Commitments

Consistent with 40 C.F.R. 1505.2(c), all practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm caused by the selected alternative have been identified and included 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

34

as mitigation measures in the Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan (MMEP),

included as Appendix C.14 The MMEP describes mitigation measures that will avoid, 

minimize, or compensate for potential adverse environmental impacts that result from 

constructing and operating the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the California HST 

System. These measures were developed by FRA and the Authority in consultation with 

appropriate agencies, as well as with input received from the public. The Authority is 

required to comply with all mitigation measures adopted with the ROD. 

The selected alternative also incorporates many design features and BMPs that are 

identified in the Final EIS and included in detail in the technical reports. The Authority 

and FRA identified these Project design features to avoid and minimize potential Project 

impacts. The Authority will apply these design features and BMPs, to avoid significant 

impacts in several resource areas. In addition, the regulatory requirements for many 

activities provide additional assurance that significant impacts on the environment will 

not occur. The applicable regulatory requirements and Project design features that are 

part of the selected alternative are described in more detail in the MMEP. The Project 

design features are a condition of Project approval and must be implemented by the 

Authority during design, construction, and operation of the selected alternative.

The MMEP, as incorporated into this ROD, is a formal commitment by the Authority to 

carry out all of the measures identified therein as a condition of Project approval. 

Therefore, in designing, constructing, and operating the selected alternative, the 

Authority is required to adhere to and provide appropriate funding for all mitigation 

measures in the MMEP. The Authority will implement an Environmental Management 

System consisting of strategic planning, policies and procedures, organizational 

structure, staffing and responsibilities, milestones, schedule, and resources devoted to 

achieving the Authority’s environmental commitments. The Environmental Management 

System will also track the implementation of environmental requirements and 

compliance reports. This system will rely on data from the design/build contractor, 

regional consultants, permitting activities, monitoring, inspections, and other 

compliance activities. This database will be managed by the Authority, and agency 

partners, including FRA, will receive regular updates from meetings and reports that will 

demonstrate compliance activities and progress relevant to their regulatory 

requirements. 

7.0 Summary of Comments on the Final EIS

During the 30-day waiting period following publication of the Final EIS, FRA received 

30 comment letters. In addition to the comment letters received by the FRA during the 

waiting period, the Authority received a combination of 66 comment letters and emails 

as well as testimony from speakers at the Authority Board hearing held on May 6, 2014,

focusing primarily on CEQA-related issues. Staff responses were prepared on May 6, 

2014 for the comments received by the Authority. These staff responses are available for 

 

14 FRA will monitor the implementation of environmental commitments in the MMEP consistent with 

CEQ regulations and guidance. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

35

the public on the Authority's website: http://www.hsr.ca.gov/. All substantive comments 

received by the FRA and the Authority during the waiting period referenced issues that 

were previously addressed in detail in Volumes IV through VI of the Final EIS or by the 

Authority staff responses. 

The range and types of comments received by the Authority and/or FRA during the 

waiting period pertaining to either CEQA or NEPA included, in general, concerns and 

questions on the following topics:

• Risk of valley fever as a result of fugitive dust created by ground disturbing 

activities due to construction

• Quantities of fill needed for construction

• Tiering of the environmental documents

• Safety and security/terrorism concerns

• Requirement to supplement the EIS

• Reasonableness of methods and analysis

• Mitigation

• Level of design (15%)

• Potential conflicts with existing railroads

• Property appraisal process

• Project impacts to cultural resources in Fresno’s Chinatown

• Project impacts to specific properties along the selected alternative

• Project impacts to properties in Bakersfield protected under Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act

• Use of U.S. Census data for the socioeconomic and environmental justice 

evaluations of project alternatives

• Project impacts to Kit Carson School in Kings County

• Lack of coordination with Kings County government representatives

In response to comments concerning the risk of increased exposure to the Coccidioides 

spores that cause Valley Fever via inhalation of fugitive dust and soil during

construction, FRA and the Authority, in coordination with the Environmental Protection 

Agency and the California Department of Public Health, revised the avoidance and 

minimization measures in the MMEP to incorporate additional best practices to 

minimize exposure to those at risk from construction activities disturbing these naturally 

occurring Coccidioides spores.

In issuing this ROD, FRA has considered all comments received on the Final EIS, as well 

as the comments previously received on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS.

8.0 Corrections to the Final EIS

FRA and the Authority prepared an errata sheet to identify minor corrections to the 

Final EIS and issued it on May 2, 2014. The errata sheet identifies the location of the 

correction in the Final EIS, the incorrect text, the corrected text, and the reason for the 

correction. These corrections are noted in an errata sheet contained in Volume VI of the 

Final EIS and pertain to the following chapters of the Final EIS: Summary;
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

36

Transportation; Air Quality and Global Climate Change; Public Utilities and Energy;

Socioeconomics, Communities, and Environmental Justice; Station Planning, Land Use, 

and Development; Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; Aesthetics and Visual Resources;

Cultural and Paleontological Resources; Appendices 1-A and 2-D; and General 

Response-02 of Volumes IV and V. Changes made to mitigation measures in the errata 

have been incorporated into the MMEP, included as Appendix C. In addition to the 

errata sheet, approximately 30 comment letters submitted by the public on the Draft and 

Supplemental Draft EIS with accompanying FRA and Authority responses inadvertently 

omitted from publication with the Final EIS were also issued in Volume VI with the 

errata. Additional corrections, some in response to comments on the Final EIS, have 

been identified since the publication of Volume VI and an additional Errata Sheet is 

included in Appendix D.

9.0 Decision

FRA finds that the selected alternative consisting of portions of the BNSF Alternative 

with Kings/Tulare Regional Station – East Alternative in combination with the Corcoran 

Bypass, Allensworth Bypass, Bakersfield Hybrid, and Bakersfield Hybrid Station 

alternatives best fulfills the purpose and need and objectives for the Project while 

balancing impacts on the natural and human environment. In reaching this decision, 

FRA considered the physical and operational characteristics and potential environmental 

consequences associated with the HST alternatives. FRA, as lead agency, consulted with 

the joint lead agency and cooperating agencies and considered the EIS Documents, 

including the analysis of the No Action Alternative, all action alternatives, and all public 

and agency comments received during the review periods in identifying the selected 

alternative. The cooperating agencies may issue their own decision documents, as 

appropriate, consistent with their statutory and regulatory responsibilities.

9.1 Section 106 

Section 106 of the NHPA (16 U.S.C. 470f) requires that any Federal agency having direct 

or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed Federal or Federally assisted undertaking take 

into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or 

other object that is listed or eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

The FRA, SHPO, the Authority, and the ACHP executed a PA on July 22, 2011. The PA 

sets forth numerous requirements intended to ensure appropriate treatment of historic 

resources during ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction. The 

PA also provides protocols for how and when formal eligibility determinations will be 

made. Eligibility determinations will be made by the appropriate agency based on 

information presented in the appropriate, completed State site records forms. Moreover, 

the PA sets forth requirements for tribal monitoring of construction activities to help 

ensure protection of cultural resources that may be encountered. Adherence to the terms 

of the PA will fulfill all obligations under Section 106. 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

37

In accordance with the PA, an MOA for the treatment of adverse effects on historic 

properties in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the California HST System was 

executed by the FRA, SHPO, the Authority, STB, USACE, and ACHP on May 14, 2014 

(see Appendix A). The California Department of Parks and Recreation, City of Fresno, 

City of Corcoran, City of Shafter, City of Bakersfield, and Sociedad Juarez Mutulaista 

Mexicana as well as the following Federally-recognized Native American tribes: Santa 

Rosa Tachi Yokuts Tribe, Table Mountain Racheria, Picayune Rancheria of the 

Chukchansi Indians, Tule River Indian Tribe, and Kern Valley Indian Council, have 

accepted the FRA and Authority invitations to be concurring parties to the MOA and

subsequent treatment plans. 

The MOA summarizes the results of the Section 106 process and the treatment measures 

agreed to among the Project’s consulting and concurring parties. The primary elements 

in the MOA include a process for revising the Area of Potential Effect (APE); a process 

for completing the historic properties identification effort; treatment measures for 

historic properties that will be affected by the Project; and administrative stipulations. 

The MOA includes treatments proposed for both above- and below-ground cultural 

resources, including archaeological and historic architectural resources as well as 

traditional cultural properties. These include general measures to avoid adverse 

operational noise effects and construction vibration effects and to mitigate impacts 

through planning for inadvertent damage and preparing detailed documentation of 

impacted historic properties, as well as property-specific measures for treatment of 

historic properties that will be adversely affected by the Project. 

9.2 Section 4(f) of the DOT Act

Projects that are undertaken by an operating administration of the DOT or that may 

receive federal funding and/or discretionary approvals from such an operating 

administration must demonstrate compliance with Section 4(f) of the DOT Act of 1966. 

Section 4(f) protects publicly owned lands that are parks, recreational areas, and wildlife 

refuges. Section 4(f) also protects historic sites of national, state, or local significance 

that are on public or private land. FRA issued its Section 4(f) Evaluation with each of the 

EIS Documents. The analysis and information in the Section 4(f) Evaluation included 

with the Final EIS is incorporated herein by reference. 

Chapter 4 of the Final EIS contains FRA’s evaluation of whether the Project would result 

in any of the following “uses” of properties projected under Section 4(f): permanent use 

(which encompasses permanent easements or temporary easements that exceed limits 

for temporary occupancy), temporary occupancy, and constructive use. Impacts were 

then evaluated to see if the criteria for a de minimis impact determination were met and 

appropriate coordination with officials having jurisdiction over each resource was 

conducted.

The alternatives evaluation process conducted as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section NEPA process concluded that in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 303(c), there was no 

feasible and prudent alternative within the study area that did not result in a use of 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

38

Section 4(f) resources. Further, the least harm analysis determined that the selected 

alternative is the alternative with the least overall harm to Section 4(f) resources. FRA 

also identified measures to minimize harm to Section 4(f) properties as part of the EIS 

process and coordinated with appropriate stakeholders. These measures have been 

incorporated into the MMEP (Appendix C), and the Authority will implement them as a 

condition of Project approval. 

Alternatives 

As described in Final EIS, Chapter 4, FRA has considered Section 4(f) properties 

throughout the planning and alternative development and analysis process through 

analysis conducted for the Program EIR/EIS, and the Fresno to Bakersfield Section EIS. 

The goals of the alternatives analysis process included avoiding and minimizing impacts 

to environmental resources, including resources protected by Section 4(f). During this 

process options were developed to address concerns specific to Section 4(f) resources 

such as the Pixley National Wildlife Refuge, Allensworth State Historic Park, and 

Allensworth Ecological Reserve, and an additional segment alternative was developed 

that would avoid Section 4(f) resources in Fresno, including the historic Southern Pacific 

station and Roeding Park. For additional information regarding the alternatives 

evaluation process, refer to Chapter 2, Alternatives, of the Final EIS for the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section.

Measures to Minimize Harm

Measures to minimize harm include measures that were taken during project planning to 

avoid or minimize impacts as well as mitigation and enhancement measures to 

compensate for unavoidable project impacts. FRA and the Authority identified measures 

to minimize harm, which will be incorporated into the project to address the impacts of 

the alternative alignments. The measures are described in Chapter 4 of the Final 

EIR/EIS, Section 4(f)/6(f) Evaluation. FRA and the Authority are continuing ongoing 

coordination, as appropriate, with applicable officials; during final design, additional 

measures may be identified. The project includes all possible planning to minimize 

harm to Section 4(f) properties resulting from use, as required by 49 U.S.C. Section 

303(c)(2).

Section 4(f) Determination

Based on the analysis contained in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS, FRA finds that there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of two historic resources, the Washington 

Irrigated Colony Historic Rural Landscape and People’s Ditch. These sites will be 

permanently incorporated into the selected alternative.

• The Washington Irrigated Colony Historic Rural Landscape (NRHP-eligible) is 

comprised of multiple contributing and individually NRHP-eligible properties. 

Two properties (i.e., the Washington Colony Canal and the North Branch of the 

Oleander Canal) that contribute to the Washington Irrigated Colony Historic 

Rural Landscape in rural Fresno County are in the direct footprint of the selected 

alternative. The construction of the selected alternative would result in the 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

39

placement of culvert crossings within the physical boundary of the historic 

properties, permanently converting land into a transportation feature and 

resulting in a direct Section 4(f) use. However, impacts would be limited to the 

portions of the canals crossed by the selected alternative and would not extend to 

other historic portions of the canals.

• People’s Ditch (NRHP-eligible) in rural Kings Country is in the direct footprint of 

the selected alternative, the construction of which will result in permanent 

incorporation of portions of this linear historic property resulting in a direct 

Section 4(f) use. However, the selected alternative would not require a complete 

demolition of Peoples Ditch as a whole.

Based on the analysis in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS, FRA also finds that there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative to the use of two park/recreational resources, the Kern 

River Parkway multi-use trails and Mill Creek Linear Park. These sites will be 

permanently incorporated into the selected alternative.

• The Kern River Parkway in Bakersfield is in the direct footprint of the selected 

alternative, the construction of which will result in permanent incorporation

(through easement) of portions of the Parkway associated with the placement of 

footings for the columns that would support the guideway. The impacts on the 

Kern River Parkway’s multi-use trails that would result from the installation of 

the footings and the maintenance easement (e.g., drain cleaning, litter removal, 

and inspection) would be minor in nature and would not adversely affect the 

activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource for protection under 

Section 4(f). This is similar to effects from adjacent crossings of the Parkway 

such as Westside Parkway and Centennial Corridor that were recently 

constructed or planned for construction; where the impacts were not considered 

a “use” of the resource by the City of Bakersfield and Caltrans (acting under its 

assumption of authority from FHWA). Informed by the analysis in the EIS, 

recent studies, and discussions with the City, FRA determined the selected 

alternative could result in a de minimis impact, as defined at 49 U.S.C. 303(d). 

However, the City, as the official with jurisdiction over this resource, has not 

agreed on the effects characterization; therefore, FRA’s Section 4(f) 

determination is that the Project would result in a Section 4(f) use of the Kern 

River Parkway.

• Mill Creek Linear Park in Bakersfield is in the direct footprint of the selected 

alternative, the construction of which will result in permanent incorporation 

(through an easement) of portions of this linear recreational resource and the 

ADA access path associated with the placement of footings for the columns that 

would support the guideway. The impacts on Mill Creek Linear Park that would 

result from the installation of the footings and the maintenance easement (e.g., 

drain cleaning, litter removal, and inspection) would be minor in nature and 

would not adversely affect the activities, features, or attributes that qualify the 

resource for protection under Section 4(f). The City conveyed to FRA the 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

40

importance of the area surrounding Mill Creek Linear Park as part of their 

downtown revitalization plans, formerly guided by the city redevelopment 

authority, and that impacts to the linear park would affect the broader 

redevelopment effort. Mill Creek Linear Park and the nearby Central Park are 

part of the City’s efforts to beautify the canal system and create park and 

recreation opportunities along its length in Bakersfield. Mill Creek Linear Park is 

located along a canal that is part of the Kern Delta Water District. According to 

the City, this canal is one of the first outputs from the Kern River, and as such,

water levels are maintained throughout the year. Mill Creek Linear Park is 

connected by sidewalk and path to Central Park, which is also along the canal and 

a recreational resource for the City of Bakersfield. The viaduct could provide 

shade opportunities for users, and effects to the recreational resource could be 

mitigated by the “in kind” replacement of the ADA access and by allowing for use 

of the park under the HST viaduct. However, the City of Bakersfield, as the 

official with jurisdiction over the recreational resource, conveyed that project 

impacts would degrade the activities and features that make the park eligible for 

protection under Section 4(f). Therefore, FRA’s Section 4(f) determination is 

that the Project would result in a Section 4(f) use of Mill Creek Linear Park. 

9.3 General Conformity Determination

As part of the environmental review of the proposed Project, FRA conducted a general 

conformity evaluation pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart W and 40 C.F.R. Part 93 

Subpart B. FRA conducted the general conformity evaluation following all regulatory 

criteria and procedures and in coordination with EPA, SJVAB, and the California Air 

Resources Board. As a result of this review, FRA finds that Project-generated emissions 

will either be fully offset (for construction phase) or less than zero (for operational 

phase) considering the following commitments:

• Prior to commencement of construction in the Fresno-Bakersfield Section, the 

Authority will enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) 

with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD).

• The Authority has committed to fully offset all construction emissions (to net 

zero) for every year of construction. 

Therefore, FRA concludes that the proposed Project, as designed, conforms to the 

purpose of the approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) and is consistent with all 

applicable general conformity requirements. The Final General Conformity 

Determination is included with this ROD as Attachment E.

9.4 Section 7 Endangered Species Finding 

Because the Project is likely to have an impact on threatened or endangered species, FRA 

prepared a BA for the Project and consulted with USFWS, as required under Section 7 of 

ESA. FRA’s informal and formal Section 7 consultation with USFWS has been ongoing 

and was instrumental in scoping the biological resource analysis for the EIS Documents, 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

41

as well as for the BA. FRA developed and submitted a Draft BA to USFWS in June 2012, 

which evaluated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project on Federally listed, 

threatened, endangered, or proposed listed species and their designated habitat. 

Following USFWS review and additional consultation and coordination, USFWS issued a 

BO for the Project on February 28, 2013. In the BO, USFWS concluded that the Project, 

as proposed, is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the listed wildlife and 

plant species potentially occurring in the Project action area. Consistent with Section 7 

requirements, the BO also stipulates several reasonable and prudent conservation 

measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts.

Following issuance of the BO, the Authority and FRA made modifications to Project 

alignment alternatives which required reopening the formal Section 7 consultation with 

USFWS. A supplemental BA was submitted to the USFWS in October 2013. Following 

USFWS review and additional consultation and coordination, USFWS issued an 

addendum to the BO for the Project on April 1, 2014. This BO also includes an incidental 

take statement authorizing activities associated with construction of the Project from the 

Fresno station to the Bakersfield station. 

9.5 Wetlands Finding 

In addition to NEPA and other environmental laws, FRA is also required to make 

findings pursuant to Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and the U.S. 

Department of Transportation Wetlands Order, DOT Order 5660.1A.

It is anticipated that impacts to waters of the United States may occur as a result of the 

selected alternative. However, as noted in Section 2.2 above, in December 2013 the

USACE concurred that the selected alternative likely contains the LEDPA. Design 

requirements and permit conditions will require contractors to avoid impacts on 

jurisdictional waters wherever feasible. 

In addition to the Section 404 permit, the Authority will submit water quality 

certification applications, prepared pursuant to Section 401 to the State Water Resources 

Control Board (SWRCB) for the selected alternative. To the maximum extent 

practicable, the Authority will implement pre- and post-construction BMPs for sediment 

and erosion control. If avoidance of impacts to jurisdictional waters is not feasible, 

mitigation will be determined by USACE and SWRCB and reflected in permits and other 

authorizations issued for the Project.

Based upon these findings, FRA determines that the Project is consistent with Executive 

Order 11990 and DOT Order 5660.1A.

9.6 Floodplains Finding

DOT Order 5620.2 implements Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management. These 

orders state that FRA may not approve an alternative involving a significant 

encroachment unless FRA can make a finding that the proposed encroachment is the 

only practicable alternative. The major purposes of Executive Order 11988 are to avoid 
Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Section

42

Federal support for floodplain development; to prevent uneconomic, hazardous, or 

incompatible use of floodplains; to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial 

floodplain values; and to be consistent with the standards and criteria of the National 

Floodplain Insurance Program. 

FRA concludes that the selected alternative will not result in any substantial adverse 

impact on natural and beneficial values of the floodplains, will not result in a substantial 

change in flood risks or damage, and will not have a substantial potential for 

interruption or termination of emergency service and evacuation routes. Based upon 

these findings, FRA determines that the Project is consistent with requirements of 

Executive Order 11988.

9.7 Environmental Justice Finding 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that each Federal agency shall make 

achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations. DOT Order 5610.2(a), “Department of Transportation Actions to Address 

Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations,” 77 FR 

27534 (May 10, 2012), imposes similar obligations on DOT operating administrations to 

promote the principles of Executive Order 12898 and incorporate such principles in all 

programs, policies, and activities, including the NEPA process.

The selected alternative will result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on 

minority and low-income populations in Fresno, Wasco, Shafter, Bakersfield, and the

rural areas of Newark Avenue, 5th Avenue, and Waukena Avenue in Corcoran, and the 

community of Crome south of Shafter. These impacts would include an increase in both 

ambient noise levels and vibration impacts; disruption of existing communities, 

residential and business displacements, and the displacement of important community 

facilities; impacts to park resources; decreases in visual quality. Minority and lowincome populations may also experience adverse cumulative noise and vibration,

community cohesion, and aesthetics and visual impacts.

The Project includes the application of noise and vibration mitigation measures to 

reduce noise and vibration impacts resulting from HST operations by construction sound 

barriers, acquiring property easements, installing insulation, and providing a smooth 

running surface for the HST, as appropriate. However, these measures would not 

completely eliminate the adverse impacts, which would likely be more severe in urban 

areas where minority and low-income populations reside. Additional outreach to 

impacted minority and low income populations within communities and residential 

areas that would be divided, such as facilitated community workshops, would mitigate 

but not eliminate the impacts that would result from displacements. Similarly, the 

incorporation of context sensitive design criteria for Project features and plantings and 

other landscape features to screen views of Project structures and sound walls would